Epstein Secrets

id not inform them about the NPA.431 On January 31, 2008, the FBI agents, Villafana, and the CEOS Trial Attorney interviewed three victims, including Courtney Wild, and they interviewed at least one more victim the next day.432 Wild and two others had been contacted by the FBI in the fall of 2007 and may have be

t this time of the state plea; rather, she likely only told those who knew about the resolution from the FBI. In her own 2015 CVRA- case declaration, Wild stated that she “was not told about any [NPA] or any potential resolution of 431 FBI agents also interviewed victims in March and May of 2008, withou

ates v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam)). This is true even if the text of the agreement purports to bind “the Government.” See Annabi, Tl\ F.2d at 672. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988)

. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) 13 In re Wild, 955 F.3d 1196 (I I th Cir.), reh'g en banc rant

ecution of Potential Co-Conspirators Is Not Limited to the SDFL. 18 1. The NPA is binding on the USAO in this District 18 2. United States v. Annabi does not alter the analysis. 19 a. There is an "affirmative appearance" that the co-conspirator immunity provision was intended to apply outsid

. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) 13 In re Wild, 955 F.3d 1196 (I I th Cir.), reh'g en banc rant

ecution of Potential Co-Conspirators Is Not Limited to the SDFL. 18 1. The NPA is binding on the USAO in this District 18 2. United States v. Annabi does not alter the analysis. 19 1. There is an "affirmative appearance" that the co-conspirator immunity provision was intended to apply outsid